Assange Will Surrender To UK Police If UN Rules Against Him

The UK government, finding out that Assange needed to leave the refuge of the Embassy, let him know that he could choose between exercising his human right to political asylum and the right to medical treatment.  All the charm of serial killers.

Of course if he sought medical treatment then he would soon need more medical treatment ... after spending time in British dungeons (or worse).

Good to check the facts here. The MSM is just pumping out the lies ATM.

NDPP wrote:

UN Panel Rules Julian Assange Arbitrarily Detained, Entitled To Liberty & Compensation (and vid)

https://www.rt.com/news/331371-assange-arbitrarily-detained-un/

"The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) concluded that Mr Julian Assange was arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.'

The group concluded that the WikiLeaks founder is entitled to his freedom of movement and to compensation. The opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally binding to the extent they are based on international human rights law..."

We are being reminded ever more often and impressively how might makes right and international law doesn't. There must be a response or the capacity and capability developed to produce one which will reverse this unacceptable status quo situation.

It's great news of course but nothing to get excited about. We've seen the Us weather the storm of being on the wrong side of the law, the wrong side of human rights, and on the wrong side by being the criminals in a war against Iraq. (among 37 other wars of aggression)

And come out of it looking like they're the great protector of humanity and always on the side of right. Assange is still screwed. Blame Putin.

edit: we need to look for the news on the West's MSM. Let us know if you find it?

NDPP wrote:

Freeing Julian Assange: The Final Chapter  -  by John Pilger

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35013-focus-freeing-julia...

"One of the epic miscarriages of justice of our time - is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention -- the international tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - has ruled that Julian Assange has been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden.

After five years of fighting to clear his name - having been smeared relentlessly yet charged with no crime - Assange is closer to justice and veneration, and perhaps freedom, than at any time since he was arrested and held in London under a European Extradition Warrant, itself now discredited by Parliament.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistleblowers as 'part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal.' Obama, the betrayer, has since prosecuted more whistleblowers than all US presidents combined.

What is certain is that a decent world owes much to Julian Assange. He told us how indecent power behaves in secret, how it lies and manipulates and engages in great acts of violence, sustaining wars that kill and maim and turn millions into the refugees now in the news.

Telling us this truth alone earns Assange his freedom, whereas justice is his right."

In those cases in which Obama acted against whistle blowers, was he compelled by law to do so? I'm suggesting treason or other illegal acts. A question that may be applicable to Bradley Manning or Snowden? 

At the same time, if someone -- Obama??  Clinton??? -- hired a ninja to scale the walls, silently "retire" Assange and disappear into the night, they clearly didn't get their ninja's worth.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I can't belive he's still in there. 

If I had a choice between living in the Equadorian embassy in London, and spending the rest of my life in solitary in a U.S. supermax prison, I know what I'd choose.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

What charges has the U.S. DA's office filed on him and where? They can't just throw him in a supermax prison on a whim. 

The answer is none and nowhere. I just can't believe he hasn't slipped out of the place over the past year or so.  

There is significant evidence that the U.S. government has a secret indictment against Assange, and would demand his extradition as soon he was in Swedish custody. A good place to start is this 2012 Guardian column by Glenn Greenwald.

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.

Yes, I agree that Assange's behaviour lately has been contrary to his previously stated principles.

If you were Assange, you would do everything you can to prevent a Clinton presidency. You've seen how Democrats treat whistleblowers. I'm not saying Republicans would treat them better, but Trump isn't a Republican.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So are you, then, saying that Trump would treat him better?

Of course he would. Why wouldn't he?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I suppose, if the enemy of his enemy is Trump's friend.

But if Wikileaks ever came in possession of The Donald's private correspondence, do you feel that he would turn the other cheek?

And that is why Assange has no friend in the US. They are quite correctly all afraid of him.

Quote:

And that is why Assange has no friend in the US. They are quite correctly all afraid of him.

No kidding.  If I had reason to think maybe he's been tapping my phone, I'd be afraid too.

Not because "I have things to hide", but because who among us wants their privacy to be publicity?

We talk of the importance of internet privacy, and personal privacy, and then we cheer someone who violates it.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Not because "I have things to hide", but because who among us wants their privacy to be publicity?

Who among us are politicians? There is a social understanding that if you enter politics, particularly U.S. Presidential politics, everything you have ever done will be subject to microscopic scrutiny. This is something politicians have to accept as part of the job.

Politicians who are dumb enough to get caught deserve to fear those who would expose them.

Quote:

We talk of the importance of internet privacy, and personal privacy, and then we cheer someone who violates it.

As Sean said (and I agree), there is a big difference based on context. Taking pictures of Kate Middleton on vacation from a half mile away is a serious and unethical breach of personal privacy. Exposing collusion between a major political party and a candidiate in what is supposed to be a fair election is laudable.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

ed'd to add:  I don't mean a free back scrub for helping bring down Shillary.  I mean, on principle. 

You mean Killary, don't you?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is an important point. Of course it comes down to what people are hiding. If the secrect information is something that involves the public interest rather than something the public is interested in (for entertainment). If the secret is compromising others and harming others then people are probably more likely to forgive the privacy violation than if the secret does no harm to the public....

There is a power to wikileaks that is beyond accountability and if it is not disturbing one might want to ask why.

Wikileaks rightly criticized the conduct of those connected to the Panama Papers "leaks" because they were not publicly accessible and therefore those doing the leaks were acting as "gatekeepers", directing public attention where it suited them. I think the criticism hit home because the policy changed but I am not 100% sure about that.

So it's not just "what they're hiding". It's also how the "whistleblower" does/doesn't do their job.

Just as a reminder, the current Obama regime has been the most ruthless, cruel hunter of whistleblowers in the history of the US. That will undoubtedly continue under a 2nd Clinton administration.

To call Wikileaks "whistleblowers" at this point is a bit disingenous.

If they were all about bringing the truth to the people, and how "information wants to be free" then why are they holding back more Clinton e-mails so that they can be an October surprise?

That's not in the interest of the people, and it's not in the interest of the truth, it's in the interest of Donald Trump.  Wikileaks is a player now.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not sure why it is so fashionable here to argue in this way.

Confused supporters of HRC, IMHO.

Dmitri Orlov [whose article I quoted and why I'm currently being denounced  ... due to his mocking GLBTQ rights] had a nice blurb on this ...

Dmitri Orlov wrote:

In all my years of watching politics in the US, never have I seen a presidential election generate such overwhelmingly negative emotions. Everyone hates Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or, increasingly, both of them. This is creating a severe psychological problem for many people: they want to tell their friends and the world that Clinton is mentally unstable and a crook, but they are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Trump. Or they want to tell everyone what a vulgar, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard Trump is, but they are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Clinton. Some are abandoning the two-party duopoly in favor of minor parties, ready to vote for Jill Stein the Green or Gary Johnson the Libertarian, but are conflicted because voting for Stein would take votes away from Clinton the crook and thus support Trump the blowhard, while voting for Johnson would take votes away from Trump the blowhard and thus support Clinton the crook. There is just no winning! Or is there?

Let liberal heads explode. See "Furious Sheep" by D. Orlov.

Quote:

Disingenuous - not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness; "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who...exemplified...the most disagreeable traits of his time"- David Cannadine; "a disingenuous excuse"

Not sure why it is so fashionable here to argue in this way.

FWIW, I wasn't thinking specifically of you -- seems like almost everyone thinks they're "whistleblowers"

Well, they're holding a whistle, but they're not going to blow it until it can do the most damage to Clinton's campaign (and while the ominous mystery meanwhile does even more).

Quote:

If you leak, you should leak "responsibly" so that innocent parties don't get hurt.   That means holding some stuff back.

That's fine.  Nothing wrong with vetting the leaks to ensure that they represent the very minimum of privacy violation.

Except that Assange is already gloating about what he's got hidden in his vest pocket.  He knows what it is, and I doubt that it's a bunch of e-mails from some secretary to some aide.  It's practically internet marketing, at this point.  "Get ready, America!  What we release next will amaze you!!"

This isn't about "we have a lot to comb through so we don't really know yet".

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Nothing wrong with vetting the leaks to ensure that they represent the very minimum of privacy violation.

Except that Assange is already gloating about what he's got hidden in his vest pocket.  He knows what it is, and I doubt that it's a bunch of e-mails from some secretary to some aide.  It's practically internet marketing, at this point.

Actually, given that known Clinton supporters are openly calling for the murder of Assange, at least one bandit has scaled the wall of the Ecuadorian Embassy, despite 24x7 surveillance for years, to no response from the "very professional" Metropolitan Police of London for 2 hours, and pressure by the jackboot US regime on Ecuador domestically, and so on, to throw the whistelblower to the wolves, if I was Julian Assange I'd be posting exposes of Clinton, and anyone else who threatened me,  and putting naked pictures of my ass as a cherry on top just to ridicule that barbarous regime.

If the US could kill him, they would. In such circumstances, anything is fair.

Since the original title of this thread is Assange's situation, here is my 2 cents.

It's been half a year since the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled in Assanges favour, and it's findings rejected by the UK.

It would have been a Pyrric victory even if accepted by the UK.  

De facto house arrest, as a political asylum grantee in the Equadorian Embassy for the rest of his natural life is unlikely--but it would be better than any forseeable alternative. (His "natural life", in any case, may be shortened since the UK has denied any police escorted visits for specialist treatment).

Finally Sweden has agreed to interview Assange over sex crime allegations, despite years of falsely saying that they only do such interviews in Sweden:

Quote:

Sweden has made a formal request to interview Assange in Ecuador’s London Embassy in June, four years after the initial offer from Ecuadorian authorities. The deal was struck on Wednesday.

The agreement was apparently reached after Ecuador’s general attorney okayed the Swedish government’s request to interview the WikiLeaks founder.

Even if Sweden after this proposed interview decides not to lay charges (for the second time after the original interview in Sweden found no charges were warranted) Assange's prospects are bleak.  

He has said he would continue his asylum in the Equadorian Embassy as he would almost certainly end up in US hands.

His days are numbered, Asylum not likely to be permenant.

One can be sure US pressure on Equador is already intense and with Clinton president, who has shown a special interest in pursuing Assange, it is unikely to be resistable.

contrarianna wrote:

De facto house arrest, as a political asylum grantee in the Equadorian Embassy for the rest of his natural life is unlikely--but it would be better than any forseeable alternative. (His "natural life", in any case, may be shortened since the UK has denied any police escorted visits for specialist treatment).

This is much the same as what the US did in relation to alleged War Criminal Slobodan Miliosovic. The US made sure that Milosovic would not receive medical attention for his heart condition (which they were aware of and followed closely - Wikileaks told us this), while he was languishing in a US-controlled dungeon.

Years later, Milosovic was "exonnerated" of the serious charges. (in a very poorly covered recent story). But he was already long dead, having failed to get the live-saving treatment he needed.

All those who oppose the Empire die. That is the underlying message ... and give the Americans their due. Their murderous policy is solidly consistent.